Are we really that bad.

[Passion8pie]

the more they believe they will win it ,the more it will pain them
..........dont we all know that one.

remember after their 10 weeks winning streak,G.Thomas took them to the movies .
they thought they had the flag that year too.
Lets all hope Lyon has taken them on a nice excursion
in their 9 day break.
GO PIES

 

[FuManchu]

I love you and adore you, you should barrack and follow the pies until the rest of the year, leave malthouse alone, just love the club, hope we win, evaluate it at the end......................... GO PIES

You're a good man, I know you are.

I will never stop evaluating where we are at, where life is at, whats happening in the world, its in my nature to do that.

For some, they can live in the moment, others like to look 6 steps ahead.

 

[hellfire]

I think you mean they are playing to their potential.

In my way of thinking, it is impossible to play 'above' ones self as if they do play at this 'above' level they are clearly showing that they are capable of playing that well.

EXACTLY!

Nothing irritates me more than hearing about how someone is playing "above" themselves...

If they're playing that well, they're obviously capable of doing it.

 

[Fadge]

We're a good team struggling with injuries and form whilst the Saints are playing with extreme confidence and are right at the top of their game.

A couple of comments from previous posters -

"Saints first five games have been against interstate sides, do we really expect any of them to be any good?" Adelaide have beaten us in Melbourne and Port are a definite top 4 chance. It's not necessarily who they've beaten, but how they've done it. They've been awesome. They had the Bulldogs covered all day last week and if it weren't for erratic kicking there would have been a 10 goal difference.

"Collingwood are over the odds". My thoughts are that we are well under the odds. We should be closer to $4.50.

"Hopefully the Saints supporters' complacency can seep through to their players". Have you EVER seen a team complacent when playing Collingwood.

I'll be watching on Monday night more in hope than with expectation, knowing that it's a long year and hopefully the form lines are reserved when we meet them in September.

 

[mdc]

I think you mean they are playing to their potential.

In my way of thinking, it is impossible to play 'above' ones self as if they do play at this 'above' level they are clearly showing that they are capable of playing that well.

EXACTLY!

Nothing irritates me more than hearing about how someone is playing "above" themselves...

If they're playing that well, they're obviously capable of doing it.

Here's an example:

Let's say Travis Cloke kicks 8 goals 0 behinds in the next 3 weeks. That would be clearly playing above himself - because no matter how well anyone kicks, kicking with 100% goal accuracy is impossible. So in the next few weeks, we expect he'll return to his average goal kicking.

Same goes for the Saints. They've had a bunch of players play very well for a period of 5 weeks or so. That bunch aren't all very good players, so they will inevitably fall back to earth eventually. Nothing says it has to be against us though.

 

[Chase the Ace]

Or Cloke finally reached his full potential with the 8 goals, and for the rest of the time he has been playing below that.

 

[DJ Black @ White Blood]

This is so important to the pies to win this one. If we win incredible as it seems but we will end up 3rd on the ladder with the 3rd best percentage in the comp. I cant really get my head around this as im not sure how after such a crap first 6 games we can find ourselves in this position. Imagine if we beat the saints and then belt the blues, oh my god we are there imbedded in the top 3.

 

[Pie eyed]

Here's an example:

Let's say Travis Cloke kicks 8 goals 0 behinds in the next 3 weeks. That would be clearly playing above himself - because no matter how well anyone kicks, kicking with 100% goal accuracy is impossible. So in the next few weeks, we expect he'll return to his average goal kicking.

Same goes for the Saints. They've had a bunch of players play very well for a period of 5 weeks or so. That bunch aren't all very good players, so they will inevitably fall back to earth eventually. Nothing says it has to be against us though.

Or they could be the next Geelong, who I would venture have been playing above themselves now for three years?

 

[FuManchu]

Or they could be the next Geelong, who I would venture have been playing above themselves now for three years?

you are either taking the p*$$ or you seriously are deluded to say that a team playing at a certain level for 3 years is playing above themselves.

Surely 3 years of playing at a level is indicative of the level they are capable of.

Tell me you are taking the p*$$!!!

 

[Feerits Elf]

you are either taking the p*$$ or you seriously are deluded to say that a team playing at a certain level for 3 years is playing above themselves.

Surely 3 years of playing at a level is indicative of the level they are capable of.

Tell me you are taking the p*$$!!!

No, he's applying reductio ad absurdum. I thought that was evident?

 

[Pie eyed]

you are either taking the p*$$ or you seriously are deluded to say that a team playing at a certain level for 3 years is playing above themselves.

Surely 3 years of playing at a level is indicative of the level they are capable of.

Tell me you are taking the p*$$!!!

Come on FU. It should be bleedin' obvious.
I am saying just because a side like the Saints has finally clicked it is not possible to just say "they are playing above themselves".
In all respects they are probably playing to their potential and they were playing below themselves.

The reality is they could be the next Geelong and no they have not been playing above themselves either.

 

[Riewoldting]

^ This guy is spot on. How can you play above yourself? You play what is in your ability to do so and some of the Saints are playing to the best of their ability at the moment. With that said, Good Luck tonight -

And to all those Magpies calling Saints fans arrogant - know that one man started that thread and most other saints posters went against and told him he got ahead of himself. So please avoid labelling us arrogant for one man's actions...

 

[tess]

^ This guy is spot on. How can you play above yourself? You play what is in your ability to do so and some of the Saints are playing to the best of their ability at the moment. With that said, Good Luck tonight -

And to all those Magpies calling Saints fans arrogant - know that one man started that thread and most other saints posters went against and told him he got ahead of himself. So please avoid labelling us arrogant for one man's actions...

Sorry about that but you should know our reputation for bad spelling/gwamma, they meant IGNORANT!

 

[Chase the Ace]

^ This guy is spot on. How can you play above yourself? You play what is in your ability to do so and some of the Saints are playing to the best of their ability at the moment. With that said, Good Luck tonight -

I agree with that
For instance although Pendles is playing well, I believe he is still not playing to his ability, once he does that won't mean he is playing above himself.

 

[wicksy]

Here's an example:

Let's say Travis Cloke kicks 8 goals 0 behinds in the next 3 weeks. That would be clearly playing above himself - because no matter how well anyone kicks, kicking with 100% goal accuracy is impossible. So in the next few weeks, we expect he'll return to his average goal kicking.

Same goes for the Saints. They've had a bunch of players play very well for a period of 5 weeks or so. That bunch aren't all very good players, so they will inevitably fall back to earth eventually. Nothing says it has to be against us though.

In my opinion, there is no example that would make me change my mind regarding the 'playing above themselves' comment.

If he kicked 8 goals straight, then he clearly has the potential to do so.

Buddy has the potential to kick 12 goals a game but kicks 4.9 and is therefore not playing to his potential.

St Kilda have finally 'clicked' and are therefore playing to their potential. Let's just hope that we do the same tonight and we should be in for a ripping game.

Although, in saying that, we cannot possibly play to our potential due to the fact Didak, Anthony and maybe Medhurt will not play.

 

[buzzbuzz]

In my opinion, there is no example that would make me change my mind regarding the 'playing above themselves' comment.

If he kicked 8 goals straight, then he clearly has the potential to do so.

Buddy has the potential to kick 12 goals a game but kicks 4.9 and is therefore not playing to his potential.

St Kilda have finally 'clicked' and are therefore playing to their potential. Let's just hope that we do the same tonight and we should be in for a ripping game.

Although, in saying that, we cannot possibly play to our potential due to the fact Didak, Anthony and maybe Medhurt will not play.

Logic! It wins every time.

To answer the initial question; We haven't, to this date, this season, demonstrated that we're better than St Kilda. The ladder is a good guide, you know.

Players of ours playing to their potential include Swan, Davis, O'Bree, Fraser, Harry O and Presti (with more, obviously, that I'm too lazy to name).

Players not playing to their potential include Pendles (yes, I rate him that highly), Medhurst (poor pre-season), Nathan Brown, Travis Cloke and Cameron Wood.

Who's to say that once our side clicks and hits their straps simultaneously that we won't be a consistent force? Logically, it would seem likely. But how likely is it for all of or 90% of our players to mature/hit good form at the same time? I guess that's the trick.

 

[_Interpol_]

My thoughts.. if you will..

1) each and every club has supporters who jump on a wagon when it's up. Cats in 07, Hawks ok, and round 1-6 2009, our lot have turned up. It's a fact of footy, as not all Collingwood fans are scum, not all carlton fans are cheats, etc etc.. It was a good day is a prime example. It's just fans being fans, and majority of saints fans are quite humble, we have nothing to brag about anyways. And i wouldnt assume that cos some fans are arrogant, the 'team' is.. some food for thought

2) this game tonight can go either way. ive never, ever been comfortable playing collingwood, and tonight will be no different. even if medders doesn't play... pies are one team which loves to beat us more than other teams do. who knows, maybes its because the least successful club in the club has their flag against them, who knows.. just that rivalry element

3) one would think on form, st kilda should win, you can only go by form, and injuries etc etc... but, it's a 2 horse race in the end, 18 v 18 if if more of your boys beat their man than ours do, well, its simple

FWIW i've picked the pies tonight.

 

[mdc]

In my opinion, there is no example that would make me change my mind regarding the 'playing above themselves' comment.

If he kicked 8 goals straight, then he clearly has the potential to do so.

You're confusing short-run performance with long-run potential.

In the short-run, anyone can kick 8 goals straight.

In the long-run, no-one can kick 8 goals straight every week (or 3 weeks, whatever). Therefore, Cloke is kicking above his long-run potential.

The fundamental mistake people make with this sort of thing is that they fail to recognise just how much luck is involved with sports. That's at the heart of this: You have a certain maximum long-term potential; if you get lucky, you can, for a short period of time, exceed that potential.

 

[Chase the Ace]

But if Cloke gets 8 kicks one week and kicks 8 goals, then gets 6 kicks the week after and kicks 6 goals, in your example Cloke played above himself in the first week.

Taking it further, you say luck plays a part in one's potential, I agree, which further confuses me in relation to your examples.

IMO reaching ones potential relates to doing everything possible with one's ability as every opportunity presents itself during a game.
Anything less than that is not reaching one's potential

 

[mdc]

So in your formulation of potential, any forward's potential is always to kick 100% in a game, as long as they're within range?

No a very useful definition imo, since no-one will ever reach their potential consistently.

 

[wicksy]

You're confusing short-run performance with long-run potential.

In the short-run, anyone can kick 8 goals straight.

In the long-run, no-one can kick 8 goals straight every week (or 3 weeks, whatever). Therefore, Cloke is kicking above his long-run potential.

The fundamental mistake people make with this sort of thing is that they fail to recognise just how much luck is involved with sports. That's at the heart of this: You have a certain maximum long-term potential; if you get lucky, you can, for a short period of time, exceed that potential.

Luck should have nothing to do with it.....
If a ball bounces over a players head when it usually would have sat for them is not a factor in whether the player is playing their absolute best. If they were capable of growing an extra head, then had they done that, they would have reached (pardon the crappy pun) their potential for that particular play.

I don't think we are going to agree so I am going to agree to disagree on this one MDC.....

 

[wicksy]

So in your formulation of potential, any forward's potential is always to kick 100% in a game, as long as they're within range?

No a very useful definition imo, since no-one will ever reach their potential consistently.

Time and consistency should also have nothing to do with it MDC.

If a player kicks 10 then they obviously have the potential to do it again....

If the same player then goes 5 weeks kicking 6 and then kicks 10 again, have they played above themselves twice in 7 weeks or have they only reached their maximum potential twice?

 

[buzzbuzz]

Potential = skill + reasonable luck + reasonable circumstances.

So if Cloke takes 9 marks inside 50, 5 in the central corridor and 4 on the flanks then we'd say kicking 6 would be a reasonable result. Technically he could kick 9 goals and there would technically be the potential for that to happen. But for a definition of potential that applies to a sportsman, 6 from 9 would be fair.

Jack Anthony has demonstrated that he can kick 5 goals and 1 behind from 6 opportunities so I guess his potential is higher in terms of goal kicking but lower in around the ground efforts, km covered etc.

Basically.. it's subjective, but those who study players and the game can take an educated guess at a player's potential and whether they're reaching it. How else would we judge kids for drafts?

 

[wicksy]

Potential = skill + reasonable luck + reasonable circumstances.

So if Cloke takes 9 marks inside 50, 5 in the central corridor and 4 on the flanks then we'd say kicking 6 would be a reasonable result. Technically he could kick 9 goals and there would technically be the potential for that to happen. But for a definition of potential that applies to a sportsman, 6 from 9 would be fair.

Jack Anthony has demonstrated that he can kick 5 goals and 1 behind from 6 opportunities so I guess his potential is higher in terms of goal kicking but lower in around the ground efforts, km covered etc.

Basically.. it's subjective, but those who study players and the game can take an educated guess at a player's potential and whether they're reaching it. How else would we judge kids for drafts?

It's an interesting one because you could nearly say that a players potential can only be determined by what they have already done therefore not really making it potential anymore.

 

[mdc]

Agree to agree to disagree, but just to qualify luck:

It's not just about freak events.

Take the example of a forward taking a shot for goal from 50m out. There is a massive amount of luck involved in this shot alone.

It's not correct to say "Goal = good kick", "Miss = bad kick".

In fact, what we know, from decades of experience, is that a good kick will only result in a goal from there maybe 60% of the time, even for the very best kicks.

That's the absolute highest possible percentage.

To use a concrete example: when John Anthony, who is a sublime kick, misses a shot for example, he hasn't failed to fulfil his potential - he's just been victim to bad luck (at least most of the time).

When Cloke misses one, we can say he's not fulfilling his potential, because his kicking action is rubbish. But we can say that when he goals as well!

edit: buzzbuzz sort of beat me to it.